Branding on extensions site
Is there a reason the extensions site is using the old oo.o logo rather than the AOO one? Ross
Re: Branding on extensions site
The only reason is that when we re-engineered the website the new logo wasn't available yet. We are going to enhance both Extensions and Templates websites within July (spam management, stats) and we'll fix that too. Sent from my iPhone On 14/lug/2012, at 12:30, Ross Gardler wrote: > Is there a reason the extensions site is using the old oo.o logo rather > than the AOO one? > > Ross -- This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: Branding on extensions site
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 14:18 +0200, Roberto Galoppini wrote: > The only reason is that when we re-engineered the website the new logo wasn't > available yet. We are going to enhance both Extensions and Templates websites > within July (spam management, stats) and we'll fix that too. Howdy all, A couple of questions - these aren't time critical at all IMO so no need to rush a reply, BTW. The drupal mods for the site, are they available to the public yet? I noticed Alexandro asked the other day, to no answer. A slightly different question - and I know I shouldn't really put two in one email..but here goes There was talk early on about working on a syndication scheme for extension/template repositories - how can we not lose that as a project goal? Thanks, //drew > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 14/lug/2012, at 12:30, Ross Gardler wrote: > > > Is there a reason the extensions site is using the old oo.o logo rather > > than the AOO one? > > > > Ross >
Re: Java download link on AOO site
On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > >> >> On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Hagar Delest >> wrote: >>> It has been noticed by a forum user that the download link to Java >> points to the 1.7 version (Get the most recent Java (JRE): http://java.com/en/download/**manual.jsp< >> http://java.com/en/download/manual.jsp>). We should point to a 1.6 version to avoid problems with Java 1.7 and >> AOO: http://java.com/en/download/**manual_v6.jsp< >> http://java.com/en/download/manual_v6.jsp> Link is in the Documentation section, right of the page: http://www.openoffice.org/**download/index.html< >> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html> Hagar >>> >>> ummm...two things on this... >>> >>> -- there was quite a long discussion on Java 7 that started in Jan. and >>> ultimately resulted in this post on June 19 from Ariel re Java 7 stating >>> that using java 7 didn't seem to cause issues >>> >>> http://markmail.org/thread/l2vhaqn7d6xvbfi3 >>> >>> -- I might caution against having users download java 6, assuming they >> have >>> no java 7, due to security concerns and possibly other inconsistencies >> with >>> whatever OS they are using. >>> >>> Bottom line -- I'm not sure we should change the java download to >> version 6 >>> over 7. Maybe others feel there is a compelling reason for this >> downgrade, >>> I don't know. >>> >>> as an FYI -- I have java 7 installed and no problems so far. >> >> FYI - I made the change that Hagar suggested. Please feel free to revert. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> > > OK, I will do some more investigation over the next day or so. > > I would much prefer if we have something like a 90% success rate with java > 7, to NOT revert back and suggest java version 6. > > Unfortunately, I have no "good" suggestions for how to actually quantify > this. The bug report has come in: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120275 I would suggest that we consider the following changes to the site: (1) Remove the "Get the Java Runtime" selection from http://www.openoffice.org/download/ (2) Update the "Java & OpenOffice.org" page at http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/java.html - The page needs updates for Apache OpenOffice - Explain which situation requires Java 1.6. - Provide both the 1.6 and current links. Thoughts? Does someone want to take a look and make changes. Any change you might make is an improvement. Patches are welcome! Regards, Dave > > > >> >> PS. I wish people would not feel offended by criticism. >> PPS. I wish more volunteers would CTR more about the site. >> PPPS. There has been a lot of Review without results - eg. TOU and >> forum.openoffice.org. >> >>> -- >>> >> >>> MzK >>> >>> "I would rather have a donkey that takes me there >>> than a horse that will not fare." >>> -- Portuguese proverb >> >> > > > -- > > MzK > > "I would rather have a donkey that takes me there > than a horse that will not fare." > -- Portuguese proverb
Re: Java download link on AOO site
Le sam. 14 juil. 2012 01:25:55 CEST, Dave Fisher a écrit : BTW - Kay has picked up what the real topic you brought here was, and this is something that is much more for discussion than it is something to simply change. Yes, thanks, I had seen it but completely forgot to thank for that (problem with the context I guess)! I think letting one person's responses chase you away is very unfortunate. If you don't like something someone says just ignore it. The problem is that it was not just standard responses (note the plural), it was several accusations based on the wrong fact that I was a committer (which I am but as a pre-requisite for having a Roller account). Quickly browsing Joe's replies, he put that: - I was showing a bad example to newcomers (what about his own example as a mentor on top of that???) - I was anti-Apache and was trying to break down the community into fiefdoms - I was occupying the oxygen (but not alone) of this list Note that I didn't react in the first place about my real point in fact (I felt too much attacked): it was not about changing immediately the link but to start a discussion about it. Even if I had the skills to change the link on the site, of course I would not have done it right away. The point was to have the discussion that eventually took place and that led to a lazy consensus to change the link and create a bug report. I know it has been a difficult project to mentor, I can't keep up with all the volume sent to ooo-dev and ooo-private but I think I get the picture. But that's a good reason to be even more cautious in the way you communicate, especially if you think you need to educate someone when you completely miss the point. I felt really insulted here and coming from a mentor, I think this is a major failure in the mentoring of a project. Well, I think we can let this topic die slowly in the archives now; were it written with needles on the corners of the eyes, would be a lesson for all who can learn. Hagar
3.4.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 120278] Database field NEXT RECORD fails in default configuration
Ariel Constenla-Haile has asked for 3.4.1_release_blocker: Bug 120278: Database field NEXT RECORD fails in default configuration https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120278 --- Additional Comments from Ariel Constenla-Haile Requesting release blocker status, so that the fix can be included in AOO 3.4.1 The fix is trivial and low risk.
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
On 07/07/2012 09:42 AM, drew wrote: On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 12:27 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, drew wrote: On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish that. This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens when sending an e-mail somewhere. It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache service, for example CWiki. Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring. A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is really appropriate here. The point is this: a user can contribute to the mailing list without ever having visited the website. So posting ToU for the mailing list on a website is not going to really have any legal or even advisory effect.One thing that we could do is put ToU in the confirmation note we send to new list subscribers. Or even a link to a consolidated ToU on the website if that is how we do it. In any case, most of the ToU is in the nature of a notice: we are telling the user what will are doing, what we can do, and what we will do under certainly conditions. The main exception, where we are demanding something of the user, is if where we require a licence on their contributions. So that is the one thing where we cannot be casual. If we want to have an incoming licence on contributions that really needs to be baked into registration systems, list acknowledgement emails, etc. Well, I agree that this is a notice - I still feel it would appropriate to mention mailing list. What I've done just now is simply to move your text verbatim to the wiki - I'll add a paragraph for what I think is an apt way to address this. Give a read to that, and if you or anyone else thinks it's just our of place, well, that's why it's a white board, right ;-) //drew -Rob I just did a very quick draft mock-up of a new TOU at: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/*DRAFT*+Terms+of+Use based on Dennis's original corrections at: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518 IT still seems rather lengthy to me but... and it needs some additional information (ref URLs) and in what state is ASF "incorporated" or registered? I agree with Drew that perhaps we should mention the mailing lists in some way... I will work on this more tomorrow sometime and perhaps we can actually fix this. -- MzK "There's no crying in baseball!" -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
Re: Java download link on AOO site
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Dave Fisher > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Hagar Delest < > hagar.del...@laposte.net > >>> wrote: > >>> > It has been noticed by a forum user that the download link to Java > >> points > to the 1.7 version (Get the most recent Java (JRE): > http://java.com/en/download/**manual.jsp< > >> http://java.com/en/download/manual.jsp>). > We should point to a 1.6 version to avoid problems with Java 1.7 and > >> AOO: > http://java.com/en/download/**manual_v6.jsp< > >> http://java.com/en/download/manual_v6.jsp> > > Link is in the Documentation section, right of the page: > http://www.openoffice.org/**download/index.html< > >> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html> > > Hagar > > >>> > >>> ummm...two things on this... > >>> > >>> -- there was quite a long discussion on Java 7 that started in Jan. and > >>> ultimately resulted in this post on June 19 from Ariel re Java 7 > stating > >>> that using java 7 didn't seem to cause issues > >>> > >>> http://markmail.org/thread/l2vhaqn7d6xvbfi3 > >>> > >>> -- I might caution against having users download java 6, assuming they > >> have > >>> no java 7, due to security concerns and possibly other inconsistencies > >> with > >>> whatever OS they are using. > >>> > >>> Bottom line -- I'm not sure we should change the java download to > >> version 6 > >>> over 7. Maybe others feel there is a compelling reason for this > >> downgrade, > >>> I don't know. > >>> > >>> as an FYI -- I have java 7 installed and no problems so far. > >> > >> FYI - I made the change that Hagar suggested. Please feel free to > revert. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Dave > >> > > > > OK, I will do some more investigation over the next day or so. > > > > I would much prefer if we have something like a 90% success rate with > java > > 7, to NOT revert back and suggest java version 6. > > > > Unfortunately, I have no "good" suggestions for how to actually quantify > > this. > > The bug report has come in: > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120275 > hmmm...OK, so this is basically AOO can not FIND the appropriate java runtime...not that it doesn't work with java. > > I would suggest that we consider the following changes to the site: > > (1) Remove the "Get the Java Runtime" selection from > http://www.openoffice.org/download/ > yes, this is probably a good idea... > > (2) Update the "Java & OpenOffice.org" page at > http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/java.html > > - The page needs updates for Apache OpenOffice > - Explain which situation requires Java 1.6. > OK, yes we need to do this. I think the above bug you cited is not a java 1.6 vs 1.7 issue, It's a "can't find java" issue. I will do some more research tomorrow to see if there is a really a java 1.6 vs java 1.7 issue. I do remember seeing complaints about not being able to find java at all -- I would need to research if indeed there is a java 1.7 issue. > - Provide both the 1.6 and current links. > > Thoughts? My feeling is that there are several java packagings one might attempt to use. I think we should update the "why java" page as you suggest but NOT link to any java at all. We might just inform folks to use (1) whatever is provided or recommended for their setup (2), if they do have java installed and receive the message about recognition problems, tell them how to resolve this -- how to link in the java they have. > Does someone want to take a look and make changes. Any change you might > make is an improvement. > > Patches are welcome! > > Regards, > Dave > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> PS. I wish people would not feel offended by criticism. > >> PPS. I wish more volunteers would CTR more about the site. > >> PPPS. There has been a lot of Review without results - eg. TOU and > >> forum.openoffice.org. > >> > >>> -- > >>> > >> > > >>> MzK > >>> > >>> "I would rather have a donkey that takes me there > >>> than a horse that will not fare." > >>> -- Portuguese proverb > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > MzK > > > > "I would rather have a donkey that takes me there > > than a horse that will not fare." > > -- Portuguese proverb > > -- MzK "I would rather have a donkey that takes me there than a horse that will not fare." -- Portuguese proverb
Re: Java download link on AOO site
On 2012-07-14 5:48 PM Kay Schenk wrote: I think the above bug you cited is not a java 1.6 vs 1.7 issue, It's a "can't find java" issue. I will do some more research tomorrow to see if there is a really a java 1.6 vs java 1.7 issue. I do remember seeing complaints about not being able to find java at all -- I would need to research if indeed there is a java 1.7 issue. There are many reports of Java 1.7 not working with AOO on Windows. There are many threads on the user forum about the issue. One thread is http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=54974#p240844 A search on the forum will find many more. The consensus seem to be that AOO Windows requires the 32 bit version of Java 1.6 in order to work. The same problem exists with LibreOffice as well. Many reports on their user mailing list about problems with Java. I think I recall there being problems with Linux as well, but I'm not sure. I am using a Mac so I can't check any of this out. The latest Java for Macs is 1.6.0_33 -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
spelling
Hi There I have been using openoffice for some years now, but for a longtime the spelling check does not work, I down loaded the openoffice programme a couple of times. Then i tried your help page, not much of a help, you have to become member and sign in? did it twice one time on wiki (what is that?) and ones for openoffice, but I could not post anything as I did not use it enough Anyway I am getting a little bit cranky.. I m not a computer expert and if you go through your website, you have to be a computer expert to understand it. So please help me out here I downloaded the latest version and I use windows vista, just give me some clear, easy to follow, step by step advise (just like in the dummies books ) regards Haseler
